Sunak. Men are men and women are women.

Am I going mad in this crazy world ? They’ll be saying men go through the menopause next! Oh dear, I see they have. 😳

Thanks, NanKate and Molly. I would never be intentionally racist, but I am aware that sometimes it is possible to be unaware of the possible readings of what we say. I just can't see anything in my post that justifies such an attack though - CS's race is far from being the point.

Accusations levelled at someone - that they are racist - are nasty. There needs to be justification for such a claim.

It's possible that an individual can say something that another perceives as racist, but that doesn't mean that it is.

Criticism aimed at a person who is black is criticism of them as a person, not as a black person.

I don't believe for one minute that DD is racist or that her observations were. I think either an explanation or an apology is called for.

Thanks, Dickens. This has really upset me. Usually Glorianny's digs are water off a duck's back, but racism is such a vile slur that I really feel attacked.

I didn't even criticise CS - I was sympathising with her on the basis that she may not have realised what was happening if, as was initially claimed, she was considered to be female at birth and had 'lived all her life as a woman'.

I was going to report the post, but on reflection I won't, as I would rather people can see for themselves what was said, and how unfounded the accusation is.

Good idea to leave it there.

There is also another nasty way of getting in a dig, it is by accusing someone of "unconscious racism" implying that racism is so engrained into their minds that they are automatically racist to anyone who is not a white caucasian. This is both hurtful and impossible to counter - the reply to anything you say is likely to be that of course you would think that you treat everyone the same, because your racism is unconscious.

The only "cure" apparently, is to "go on a course" and have it thoroughly dinned into you that you are a vile sinner and must eat dirt and beg forgiveness. That is very reminiscent of the way some religious sects give their new converts an indoctrination into how they are - yes - vile sinners and must get down on their knees and confess how black their hearts are and how they can only be saved by following to the letter the prescribed path of atonement and obedience.

Elegran

There is also another nasty way of getting in a dig, it is by accusing someone of "unconscious racism" implying that racism is so engrained into their minds that they are automatically racist to anyone who is not a white caucasian. This is both hurtful and impossible to counter - the reply to anything you say is likely to be that of course you would think that you treat everyone the same, because your racism is unconscious.

The only "cure" apparently, is to "go on a course" and have it thoroughly dinned into you that you are a vile sinner and must eat dirt and beg forgiveness. That is very reminiscent of the way some religious sects give their new converts an indoctrination into how they are - yes - vile sinners and must get down on their knees and confess how black their hearts are and how they can only be saved by following to the letter the prescribed path of atonement and obedience.

The 'G' penned an article on unconscious bias, oh many years ago now, in relation to white men and women not considering dating their black counterparts because of it.

It didn't seem to occur to them to ask black men and women whether they would automatically choose to date a white man or woman - if they deigned to consider their bias?

Unconscious bias indeed!

I don’t think I am guilty of unconscious bias though. I don’t care what race CS is - my concern (that others have also expressed) is with a male-bodied person competing against women. Why am I being singled out for slurs? The only thing I said differently is that I have sympathy for CS’s situation, which I do.

'Shouting and pointing' is quite alarming: the default reaction when anything challenging is said that certain factions don't agree with. Reasonable discussion is the first casualty. Accusations are made and the 'victim' is so occupied in attempting to defend what they have said - or, more usually, what they haven't said but have been accused of - that the original point is lost.

So are you saying that the accusation of racism is a diversionary tactic to move away from the point of the thread? Sorry if not - I’m not sure what you were getting at really.

LovesBach

'Shouting and pointing' is quite alarming: the default reaction when anything challenging is said that certain factions don't agree with. Reasonable discussion is the first casualty. Accusations are made and the 'victim' is so occupied in attempting to defend what they have said - or, more usually, what they haven't said but have been accused of - that the original point is lost.

I don’t understand the point being made here LovesBach.
Who is being accused of ‘shouting and pointing’.
What caused the original point, that men are men and women are women to be lost?

I was never into debating societies and such (despite someone on GN a few years ago saying that all posters should be able to logically defend their point of view, with evidence, because "everyone did debating at school".

However, it does seem that one feature of debating societies is that people are told "Next week we will be debating (insert the subject) You, X, will be speaking for this, and you, Y, will second it. You, A, will speak against it, and you, B, will second that." No need to have a genuine opinion, it is an exercise in being persuasive for the sake of it. Good training for a political career.

The result of some people in some schools having "debating experience" of this kind is that they become practiced at arguing strongly and persuasively for or against something without necessarily having the slightest interest in it, They are adept at using tactics that could put their "opponent" off their stride - like throwing doubt on their credentials or integrity, sounding scornful of the quality of the evidence they have produced and acting amused at their naivety.

I'm sure most debating societies would have rules against personally attacking someone with an allegation like racism though?

Doodledog that was part of the point I was trying to make - hugely unsuccesfully it seems. (Sigh)

Sorry, LovesBach. I think I am a bit sensitive just now .

Doodledog I've been out all day, but I can say with 100% certainty that you are not racist, either consciously or unconsciously. I think sometimes it's people with a racist bias that see racism where there is none. I have mixed race family, they don't see racism everywhere, just believe that most people take them as they find them. Some will like them, others won't, but not because of skin colour, personality clashes happen all the time.

Doodledog

I'm sure most debating societies would have rules against personally attacking someone with an allegation like racism though?

Maybe they do, but it is a effective weapon so could be brought into use by someone who enjoyed discomfiting a poster they couldn't silence.

True. Well, the truth is that I do feel discomfited - a bit battered, to be honest, but I won't be silenced. I know the 'racist' slur is untrue, and I know that people I respect are aware of that, which is what matters.

It's a shame that things can't be discussed reasonably - maybe not all debating societies are equal - but life goes on. This is a subject that matters to me. I don't argue for the sake of it, or to score points, but increasingly it feels as though that is the game, you're right. Referring to things I said pages earlier in a different context and gloating when I don't remember, telling me I am twisting things when I point out inconsistencies in logic, addressing 'some people' when it is clear that digs are being made, conflating a concern for women's rights with racism, homophobia and even anti-feminism, etc etc - all the usual tactics are in play, and its wearing. In some ways all the more so because they are so clumsily used, and it's so obviously not a simple case of something being misworded. Wording badly is easy to do when posting between other activities - I do it all the time - but the 'Gotcha's, the set-ups and so on are deliberate and would be unnecessary if proper arguments would hold up on their own. They cause these threads to become about these tactics rather than about the fact that women's rights are being squashed in the name of 'inclusivity' and 'kindness'.

Anyway, I shall await a response from Glorianny. Maybe there is an explanation for what she said. I doubt that one will be forthcoming, however. Past form suggests that either there will be an aggressive response, or that she will disappear for a while in the hope that the thread will move on or die and nobody will remember. If that fails she can always reinvent herself again and try to disassociate herself with the comments she made in this name.

Doodledog It's hardly surprising that you feel discomfited. You have expended effort in order to defend yourself, moving away from the original post. This tactic is employed to deflect from a point that has presumably struck home or is not answerable with logic. There was a poster months ago who attacked all and sundry on every topic, clearly for the 'fun' of attempting to rattle other posters. She seems to have gone - or has she? Presumably it is easy to change your name and reappear with new aggresive ammunition.

Yes, unless people have been banned, it is easy to change a username. Often there is good reason - someone thinks they’ve given too much away about themselves, they’ve lost their password, they just fancy a change, or even it’s just that they want a new start after an argument.

Others, as you say, make a habit of it, or flounce off and return under a new name to save face, which is less honest, IMO. It’s usually obvious though. People have their own posting style which is difficult to hide for any length of time.

Anyway. Back to the topic.

JK Rowling has said that many women will be put off voting Labour because of Lisa Mandy’s stance on women’s rights. I’m inclined to agree, as although I will vote Labour myself I struggle to forgive their behaviour on this. It’s not fair to single out Nandy, IMO though. David Lammy, Emily Thornberry, Jess Philips and others have all said quite ridiculous things, as has Keir himself. They are backtracking now, but still.

I do appreciate that when being interviewed on divisive topics like this one it must be difficult to choose your words carefully. As on here, interviewers will aim for ’Gotcha’s that will make good headlines, and the opposition (on both sides) will seek out inconsistencies and any cracks in your argument.

It’s easy to forget that Sunak and his predecessors were seemingly on the side of Stonewall at one time - they may have read the room better and more quickly than Labour, but they were. I don’t think for a moment that they are any more sincere in their stated views, but had Labour taken an opposing stance it could very quickly have become polarised with their being presented as all the things that get thrown at anyone who speaks up for women on this issue - exclusionary, homophobic, bigoted and so on, and the ensuing arguments would have completely eclipsed all the other things that needed to be said. It’s been a difficult path to tread, and I sympathise.

But it could have been handled so much better, and it’s disappointing that they were so willing to tread on women for political reasons. As it is, many women have been alienated from Labour, and it’s hard to see how that can be turned around without accusations of insincerity when the inevitable backpedaling starts.

Good post as always.
Re your last paragraph
I fully expect labour to get in next time. It’s hard to see how they wouldn’t, even if they promised to do nothing.
But I am concerned that if they do get in it will be used to prove that women don’t care whether they are sidelined by men or that women’s rights, obviously don’t matter because they still voted for labour.
I can imagine hearing that from at least one person.

I very much hope that they do get in. I don't think that a victory would signal a belief that women don't care about rights - to be honest, I think that a lot of women still don't realise that the trans issue is about a lot more than a few vulnerable people wanting acceptance. I'm not really convinced that Keir or any of them really think that men can have a cervix either. I think, as I said in my previous post, that they were forced into a no-win situation - Stonewall was very powerful until relatively recently.

But it would have been so much better to say that trans rights are important, but have to be considered alongside existing women's rights. A few assurances (with examples) that women's rights would be retained would have gone a long way. The gaffes about how defining a woman is difficult are examples of how anything being said can be used against the speaker, rather than expressions of genuine belief, I think.

But it would have been so much better to say that trans rights are important, but have to be considered alongside existing women's rights. A few assurances (with examples) that women's rights would be retained would have gone a long way.

That is all that needed to be said - you're right!

Starmer should have the sense not to comment 'off the cuff 'about transgender matters. He knows it's a controversial subject and should take a more reasoned and thoughtful approach instead of trying to appease by saying "it's not right to say that only women have a cervix". It would've been better not to comment at all.

A doctor or surgeon would certainly make a distinction between a natal cervix and one that had been constructed.

Absolutely, but journalists love catching people out like that - the Gotcha! is a bit of a coup. Politicians can't have ready-made replies for everything, so if the question sneaks up it will be difficult. Look what happened to Nicola Sturgeon over Isla Bryson, and NS was excellent at media engagement and communication in general.

I suspect that the 'men can have a cervix' comment (was that Lammy?) was meant to be a nod to transmen, who are born women, so do have cervixes. It's such a minefield when you try to stick to an 'everyone is who they say they are' mantra, when you know it is nonsense.